Reese v. Isola State Bank

• Decision Date: 26 October 1925
• Docket Number: 25112
• Citation: 140 Miss. 355,105 So. 636
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: REESE et al. v. ISOLA STATE BANK. [*]

105 So. 636

140 Miss. 355

REESE et al. v. ISOLA STATE BANK. ^[*]

No. 25112

Supreme Court of Mississippi

October 26, 1925

Division A

1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Members of board of trustees of public school, discharging duties imposed on board, held not responsible individually for negligence in discharging such duties. The members of the board of trustees of a public school, when discharging the duties imposed upon the board act in their official and not individual capacity, and are not responsible individually to third persons for negligence in discharging such duties.

2. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Members of board of trustees of public school, causing warrants to be issued on county treasury to pay for lumber for school, and directing county treasurer not to pay warrants, held not liable to innocent purchaser for value of warrants.

Where members of the board of trustees of a public school, acting in their official capacity, cause warrants on the county treasury to be issued for the payment of lumber purchased by them for the school before the lumber was delivered, and thereafter the payment of the warrants was refused by the county treasurer at the request of the trustees, for the reason that the lumber had not been delivered, the trustees are not liable to an innocent purchaser for value of the warrants, although they may have been negligent in directing their issuance.

Hon. S F. DAVIS, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Sunflower county, HON. S. F. DAVIS Judge.

Action by the Isola State Bank against W. P. Reese and others trustees of the Wade Consolidated School District, and the Wade Consolidated School District. Judgment for plaintiff, which was afterward set aside as to the school district, and the trustees appeal. Reversed, and cause dismissed.

Judgment reversed, and cause dismissed.

W. P. Searcy, for appellants.

The proposition is whether or not these appellants, who were the trustees of the Wade consolidated school district, and who acted within the scope of their authority, should be called upon to respond to a judgment of the court against them individually for their acts, made within the scope of their authority, and for and on behalf of the said Wade consolidated school district. This is settled by Pidgeon Thomas Iron Co. v. Leflore Co., 99 So. 677.

The statute creating the agricultural high schools confers upon the trustees the control and management of said schools, but nowhere inflicts upon them individual liability for any of their acts, and we submit, under the decision of Pidgeon Thomas Iron Company v. Leflore County, supra, that the said rule of law would apply to the trustees of the Wade consolidated school district. See also Nabors, et al. v. Holly Bluff Consolidated School District, 100 So. 117. Therefore, we see from this line of authority that this matter has already been adjudicated by this court, both as to the liability of the Wade consolidated school district, and as to the trustees individually.

In the issuance of their order to the superintendent of education the trustees were acting for and on behalf of the Wade consolidated school district, and upon the representation made to them by Meadows that the material had been shipped, and was in transit, and that he needed the pay certificates to pay out the lumber upon its arrival. They were justifiable in the issuance of the order and not negligent or careless in the issuance of the same, but granting for argument's sake that said order should not have been given until said material had been delivered, then they were not liable for the reason that in issuing said order they were acting for and on behalf of the Wade consolidated school district, and not as individuals, and that those dealing with them recognized this fact, and since the Wade consolidated school district cannot be sued and is not liable for said obligations, neither are the trustees, the appellants here.

Everett & Forman, for appellee.

Will the conduct of the trustees in causing warrants to be issued and circulated through the regular business and banking channels, into the hands of innocent purchasers, make them individually liable? In the case before the court we find that the trustees of a consolidated school are, by statute, custodians of the school property, and shall have charge of erecting, repairing, or the equipment of buildings, and are authorized to write orders to the clerk of the municipality, or the county superintendent, to issue warrants and pay certificates on any available school funds of such school district. Section 3488, Hemingway's Code.

Here the trustees of this...